Where the Punishment outweighs the Crime... This is another example of the disproportionate tilt (at POWER - and who's POWER drunk at the moment ?) which the Parliament is giving itself.... and bugga the consequences, let alone the Judiciary.... How one small crime (yes it was a crime) and the small punishment then got out of control.... Another feeding frenzy for the (legally sanctioned) sharks....
from The Independent Weekly :
Adelaide Independent Weekly, No 220, January 16 – 22, 2009, pg 4 - 5
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Is this CORRUPTION or Negligence ? ...either way – guess who's paying?
Dateline: January 2009.
Facts:
A Senior Federal Government Public Servant is posted to the UK. This posting involves him and his family flying Business Class with QANTAS to the UK. With him goes approx. 14 pieces of luggage. Total baggage weight, approx. 270kgs.
Allowances: Normal (QANTAS Club) Business Class travellers would have an allowance of 40kgs each (80kg for him and his wife). This leaves a TAXPAYER FUNDED EXCESS BAGGAGE bill of some 190kgs at $48/kg = $9,120.
If this EXCESS BAGAGE had been dispatched as “Unaccompanied Baggage” the bill would have been around $1,045 (at $5.50/kg).
QUESTIONS:
Why does the Taxpayer have to continually endure such inefficiencies ? or cough up an additional $8,075? Was this unlawful activity on the part of the Senior Public Servant ? or mere negligence on the part of the Department ?
Either way – Why does the Taxpayer need to fund $8,075 ? Isn’t there some Current Financial Crisis atm (at the moment)?
....but this story has an important (and unrelated) sequel ....... which cannot be revealled at present.....
Facts:
A Senior Federal Government Public Servant is posted to the UK. This posting involves him and his family flying Business Class with QANTAS to the UK. With him goes approx. 14 pieces of luggage. Total baggage weight, approx. 270kgs.
Allowances: Normal (QANTAS Club) Business Class travellers would have an allowance of 40kgs each (80kg for him and his wife). This leaves a TAXPAYER FUNDED EXCESS BAGGAGE bill of some 190kgs at $48/kg = $9,120.
If this EXCESS BAGAGE had been dispatched as “Unaccompanied Baggage” the bill would have been around $1,045 (at $5.50/kg).
QUESTIONS:
Why does the Taxpayer have to continually endure such inefficiencies ? or cough up an additional $8,075? Was this unlawful activity on the part of the Senior Public Servant ? or mere negligence on the part of the Department ?
Either way – Why does the Taxpayer need to fund $8,075 ? Isn’t there some Current Financial Crisis atm (at the moment)?
....but this story has an important (and unrelated) sequel ....... which cannot be revealled at present.....
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Is this Police Thuggery...... !!! U Read and U decide.....
Dateline : 12 Jan 2009. The names, places & times have been altered for pending Litigation reasons.... this all happened in an Adelaide suburb (South Australia) within the past few weeks.....
The FULL Version has been retained for Litigation purposes...... This is an “abridged version” of the events. This version is taken from actual facts provided by my client. He is pursuing this matter against the State of South Australia. I would NOT be surprised if similar events took place on a daily basis throughout Australia. You decide if you think this is acceptable behaviour for members of the public to endure..... while minding their own business in public.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question/s that remain to be answered are :
Why was the police car speeding , when it was travelling in the opposite direction to Josh ? (No flashing warning lights we active)
Why was the police car speeding , when it was travelling in the same direction to Josh ? (No flashing warning lights we active)
Why did the Police car make an illegal U-turn?
Why was the Police car “tailgating” Josh’s car when it could have driven in a safe manner in the other lane?
Why was the Police car “straddling” the roadway, potentially creating a danger to other traffic ? (This was NOT the culmination of some “crime”)
Why were neither Police Officers wearing “high visibility” vests or clothing at night when they were walking around on a roadway?
Josh has no issue with them asking him to submit for a “breath test”.
Why did Officer 2 need to question Josh’s passenger as to her identity ?
Why did Officer 2 need to see in Josh’s boot ? (if he suspected something – why did he not say what he was suspecting)
Why was Josh threatened with having his car defected when there was clearly nothing wrong with his car ?
Why did Officer 1 engage in a search of Josh’s car ?
Why do Police not have full audio and/or video recordings of all their activities (as Victoria is now being introduced in Victoria)?
Is this the type of behaviour we can expect from Police ...... as the norm ?
The FULL Version has been retained for Litigation purposes...... This is an “abridged version” of the events. This version is taken from actual facts provided by my client. He is pursuing this matter against the State of South Australia. I would NOT be surprised if similar events took place on a daily basis throughout Australia. You decide if you think this is acceptable behaviour for members of the public to endure..... while minding their own business in public.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These facts are very REAL and true..... For the purposes of this BLOG, the client will be referred to as “Josh”
One evening recently Josh and a female friend (who he’s been trying to date)were travelling along a well known road. Traffic volumes in his direction were very light at that time however there was quite a lot of traffic heading in the opposite direction at about that time.
He had a female passenger in the car at the time. No other occupants.
His car was properly registered and insured – with no defects or anything that would make it stand out and it was a very popular family car. He had the cruise control set at 60km/h all the way (which was the speed limit in that area – and that road.
As he approached an intersection (which is partitioned by a grass median island and controlled by traffic lights) he noticed several cars’ headlights coming in the opposite direction. When he entered the intersection the traffic lights were green for him at the time. As he had just crossed the intersection he noticed one particular vehicle travelling in the opposite direction at a speed much greater than his speed or that of the other vehicles travelling in the opposite direction.
Josh is a driver with approx. 20+years driving experience in a number of different classes of vehicles. He estimates conservatively that he would have driven approx. 1million kilometres in his driving days. He would estimate that particular vehicle was travelling approx. between 80 and 90km/h in the opposite direction. It was ONLY due to the excessive speed that this other vehicle was travelling which caught Josh’s attention.
He believed that it was travelling dangerously fast which clearly was outside the legal limits and he felt that if a police officer were present that oncoming vehicle would immediately be booked for speeding. That vehicle had just overtaken several other vehicles, travelling in the same direction as it, and the speed at which they were being overtaken, was significantly faster than those other vehicles. Josh estimates the overtaking vehicle would have to be doing at least 90-100km/h.
This vehicle having attracted his attention for its excessive speed, he kept an eye on that vehicle. He had already commented to his passenger what an “idiot” the other vehicle’s driver must be for going so fast in a 60km/h zone. Given the wide expanse of traffic in the two directions he was easily able to monitor and view this vehicle travelling in the opposite direction.
As this vehicle passed him, he noticed it was in fact a marked white Police car. Given that he had now identified this other vehicle as a Police car he was less concerned by its speed as he deduced that it was probably on urgent police business and heading to a possible crime scene. He relaxed.
However almost immediately it had passed him, he noticed in his rear view mirror that its brake lights came on and it did a U-Turn at the traffic lights which he had just passed and was coming up behind him very fast.
Once this Police car had got up behind him it appeared to him that the Police car was now travelling a lot slower than when it was heading in the opposite direction, but by the time he reached the little shopping centre the police car had sped up again and was now right up behind him (so close that it was “tailgating” him) so close that if he had done this to anyone else – he would be booked for tailgating. The police car was now maintaining that position behind Josh, both travelling in the same direction. The police car was far too close for safe and comfortable driving and Josh felt intimidated by it in that proximity and felt harassed. This all took place in the same lane as which Josh was travelling. If indeed the police car needed to obtain his numberplate details it could have positioned itself in the other lane quite safely. Josh re-checked his speedo and noticed that the cruise control was maintaining his steady speed of 60km/h. He just kept driving.
Within about 30 seconds of the police car positioning itself right up behind him – with both vehicles travelling in the same direction, the police car activated its red and blue warning lights and Josh immediately pulled over.
The Police car – with its flashing lights activated – positioned itself in a “straddled” manner whereby it was not in behind Josh in a proper parallel manner but the Police car was straddled onto the roadway lane. Josh was parked parallel to the roadway in a car park bay completely off the roadway. Most of the police car was straddled onto one lane of traffic, blocking all traffic from use of that lane.
At this stage – immediately after Josh had brought his car to a standstill he alighted from the vehicle and moved to the rear of his car and went and stood up against the footpath – on the roadway (behind his car) awaiting the police officers.
He then noticed as the police car doors were opened – (with the interior lights then on – it revealed that there were two police officers in the Police car.) Josh then gives very detailed information of the occupants of the Police car. When the officers alighted – and at all times – were never wearing any “high visibility” clothing, just their normal police uniforms. No reflective clothing, although it had been completely dark for many hours at that stage.
Josh then immediately asked the driver – who had approached him “What’s this about”?
For these purposes we will name this Police officer “Officer 1”. Officer 1 immediately responded by asking if Josh had his driver’s licence? Josh confirmed that he did and moved to the driver’s side rear door of his own car to extract his driver’s licence. He went back to the rear of his car. While he was getting the driver’s licence out, Officer 1 was handling something. As Josh had been returning from extracting his driver’s licence, Officer 2 asked him if I was “ Josh “ Josh confirmed his name. Officer 2 did not ask him his surname, just his first name. Officer 2 proceeded to go to the passenger front door of Josh’s car and demanded to speak to Josh’s passenger.
At that point Josh had his driver’s licence in his hand when Officer 1, ignored the driver’s licence and proceeding to carry out a “breath test”. Officer 1 said something like – “Blow in here with one long continuous breath”. Josh immediately complied. Officer 1 – never gave me ANY other explanation (other than what was said above) about any powers they had to undertake these procedures. Josh blew one long continuous breath. When he had completed this procedure, Officer 1 - 1st looked at the reading, and then asked him: with a surprised voice “Have you had anything to drink?” Josh replied “No”. Officer 1 then proceeded to the passenger side of the Police car where Officer 2 was back in the police car and they had a conversation. Officer 2 appeared to be using the on-board computer mounted in the Police car.
The next thing Officer 2 again alighted from the front passenger seat of the police car, and called out to Josh to open the boot of my car. He immediately asked “What for?” Officer 2 responded by saying “ Just open the boot or i’ll defect your car”. Josh responded by saying “ Do what you like”. Officer 2 insisted Josh open the boot and Josh kept asking “What for?”. Josh said to Officer 2 this request was inappropriate. Josh told Officer 2 this has never happened to me before. Officer 2 said “You never been pulled over before” Josh said “No - I have been pulled over before but I have never been treated like this”. While this conversation was progressing, Officer 2 was getting more and more aggressive toward Josh. Josh was feeling more and more intimidated – especially given that he was in the presence of his female friend – it was late at night, he was far from home, and the two police officers were getting more and more aggressive about the whole matter. He felt threatened – although he knew there was nothing wrong with his car and there was nothing deflectable about his car, however Officer 2 still (despite Josh’s knowledge about his car) felt intimidated and threatened.
Josh then went back to the drivers side of his car and pressed the boot release button and the boot opened. (Josh was protesting throughout the whole saga). The 2 Officers were smirking at him and his protests. At that stage Officer 1 inspected the boot – which was empty. Officer 1 opened the spare wheel recess and shone a torch into every pocket and cavity in the boot. Once this was finished Officer 1 proceeded to go through the whole car, (details of this event not revealed here).
Josh told them that their behaviour and the way they were treating him was inappropriate and that he was going to lodge a complaint about their behaviour – they said “Do what you like” and walked back to their respective sides of the Police car.
As they were about to leave Josh asked them for their details – they “rattled” something so fast that he could not hear what they said. Josh repeated his request. Then they both spoke very softly – with their backs turned. Again Josh could not hear. He followed them back to the Police car and Josh noticed numbers, which he immediately wrote down on a piece of paper. He kept the piece of paper.
Earlier, while Officer 1 was breath testing Josh, Officer 2 had proceeded to the passenger side of the vehicle and was questioning his female passenger. Josh was not privy to all what was said between them, but he Officer 2 ask her why her name did not come up on the computer? Officer 2 had instructed her to get out of Josh’s car and she was out of the car, on the footpath. Josh’s female passenger assured Officer 2 that she had given him, her correct name and address. Officer 2 said she was not on the “system” suggesting she had or was lying to him about her true identity. She said she had never been questioned or stopped by Police. Officer 2 said “That’s impossible” – “everyone’s on the system”. Josh’s passenger was most distraught about the whole incident, and Josh gained the impression that she thought he was a “person of interest” to Police and requested Josh immediately take her home and these actions have undermined Josh’s relationship with this woman.
One evening recently Josh and a female friend (who he’s been trying to date)were travelling along a well known road. Traffic volumes in his direction were very light at that time however there was quite a lot of traffic heading in the opposite direction at about that time.
He had a female passenger in the car at the time. No other occupants.
His car was properly registered and insured – with no defects or anything that would make it stand out and it was a very popular family car. He had the cruise control set at 60km/h all the way (which was the speed limit in that area – and that road.
As he approached an intersection (which is partitioned by a grass median island and controlled by traffic lights) he noticed several cars’ headlights coming in the opposite direction. When he entered the intersection the traffic lights were green for him at the time. As he had just crossed the intersection he noticed one particular vehicle travelling in the opposite direction at a speed much greater than his speed or that of the other vehicles travelling in the opposite direction.
Josh is a driver with approx. 20+years driving experience in a number of different classes of vehicles. He estimates conservatively that he would have driven approx. 1million kilometres in his driving days. He would estimate that particular vehicle was travelling approx. between 80 and 90km/h in the opposite direction. It was ONLY due to the excessive speed that this other vehicle was travelling which caught Josh’s attention.
He believed that it was travelling dangerously fast which clearly was outside the legal limits and he felt that if a police officer were present that oncoming vehicle would immediately be booked for speeding. That vehicle had just overtaken several other vehicles, travelling in the same direction as it, and the speed at which they were being overtaken, was significantly faster than those other vehicles. Josh estimates the overtaking vehicle would have to be doing at least 90-100km/h.
This vehicle having attracted his attention for its excessive speed, he kept an eye on that vehicle. He had already commented to his passenger what an “idiot” the other vehicle’s driver must be for going so fast in a 60km/h zone. Given the wide expanse of traffic in the two directions he was easily able to monitor and view this vehicle travelling in the opposite direction.
As this vehicle passed him, he noticed it was in fact a marked white Police car. Given that he had now identified this other vehicle as a Police car he was less concerned by its speed as he deduced that it was probably on urgent police business and heading to a possible crime scene. He relaxed.
However almost immediately it had passed him, he noticed in his rear view mirror that its brake lights came on and it did a U-Turn at the traffic lights which he had just passed and was coming up behind him very fast.
Once this Police car had got up behind him it appeared to him that the Police car was now travelling a lot slower than when it was heading in the opposite direction, but by the time he reached the little shopping centre the police car had sped up again and was now right up behind him (so close that it was “tailgating” him) so close that if he had done this to anyone else – he would be booked for tailgating. The police car was now maintaining that position behind Josh, both travelling in the same direction. The police car was far too close for safe and comfortable driving and Josh felt intimidated by it in that proximity and felt harassed. This all took place in the same lane as which Josh was travelling. If indeed the police car needed to obtain his numberplate details it could have positioned itself in the other lane quite safely. Josh re-checked his speedo and noticed that the cruise control was maintaining his steady speed of 60km/h. He just kept driving.
Within about 30 seconds of the police car positioning itself right up behind him – with both vehicles travelling in the same direction, the police car activated its red and blue warning lights and Josh immediately pulled over.
The Police car – with its flashing lights activated – positioned itself in a “straddled” manner whereby it was not in behind Josh in a proper parallel manner but the Police car was straddled onto the roadway lane. Josh was parked parallel to the roadway in a car park bay completely off the roadway. Most of the police car was straddled onto one lane of traffic, blocking all traffic from use of that lane.
At this stage – immediately after Josh had brought his car to a standstill he alighted from the vehicle and moved to the rear of his car and went and stood up against the footpath – on the roadway (behind his car) awaiting the police officers.
He then noticed as the police car doors were opened – (with the interior lights then on – it revealed that there were two police officers in the Police car.) Josh then gives very detailed information of the occupants of the Police car. When the officers alighted – and at all times – were never wearing any “high visibility” clothing, just their normal police uniforms. No reflective clothing, although it had been completely dark for many hours at that stage.
Josh then immediately asked the driver – who had approached him “What’s this about”?
For these purposes we will name this Police officer “Officer 1”. Officer 1 immediately responded by asking if Josh had his driver’s licence? Josh confirmed that he did and moved to the driver’s side rear door of his own car to extract his driver’s licence. He went back to the rear of his car. While he was getting the driver’s licence out, Officer 1 was handling something. As Josh had been returning from extracting his driver’s licence, Officer 2 asked him if I was “ Josh “ Josh confirmed his name. Officer 2 did not ask him his surname, just his first name. Officer 2 proceeded to go to the passenger front door of Josh’s car and demanded to speak to Josh’s passenger.
At that point Josh had his driver’s licence in his hand when Officer 1, ignored the driver’s licence and proceeding to carry out a “breath test”. Officer 1 said something like – “Blow in here with one long continuous breath”. Josh immediately complied. Officer 1 – never gave me ANY other explanation (other than what was said above) about any powers they had to undertake these procedures. Josh blew one long continuous breath. When he had completed this procedure, Officer 1 - 1st looked at the reading, and then asked him: with a surprised voice “Have you had anything to drink?” Josh replied “No”. Officer 1 then proceeded to the passenger side of the Police car where Officer 2 was back in the police car and they had a conversation. Officer 2 appeared to be using the on-board computer mounted in the Police car.
The next thing Officer 2 again alighted from the front passenger seat of the police car, and called out to Josh to open the boot of my car. He immediately asked “What for?” Officer 2 responded by saying “ Just open the boot or i’ll defect your car”. Josh responded by saying “ Do what you like”. Officer 2 insisted Josh open the boot and Josh kept asking “What for?”. Josh said to Officer 2 this request was inappropriate. Josh told Officer 2 this has never happened to me before. Officer 2 said “You never been pulled over before” Josh said “No - I have been pulled over before but I have never been treated like this”. While this conversation was progressing, Officer 2 was getting more and more aggressive toward Josh. Josh was feeling more and more intimidated – especially given that he was in the presence of his female friend – it was late at night, he was far from home, and the two police officers were getting more and more aggressive about the whole matter. He felt threatened – although he knew there was nothing wrong with his car and there was nothing deflectable about his car, however Officer 2 still (despite Josh’s knowledge about his car) felt intimidated and threatened.
Josh then went back to the drivers side of his car and pressed the boot release button and the boot opened. (Josh was protesting throughout the whole saga). The 2 Officers were smirking at him and his protests. At that stage Officer 1 inspected the boot – which was empty. Officer 1 opened the spare wheel recess and shone a torch into every pocket and cavity in the boot. Once this was finished Officer 1 proceeded to go through the whole car, (details of this event not revealed here).
Josh told them that their behaviour and the way they were treating him was inappropriate and that he was going to lodge a complaint about their behaviour – they said “Do what you like” and walked back to their respective sides of the Police car.
As they were about to leave Josh asked them for their details – they “rattled” something so fast that he could not hear what they said. Josh repeated his request. Then they both spoke very softly – with their backs turned. Again Josh could not hear. He followed them back to the Police car and Josh noticed numbers, which he immediately wrote down on a piece of paper. He kept the piece of paper.
Earlier, while Officer 1 was breath testing Josh, Officer 2 had proceeded to the passenger side of the vehicle and was questioning his female passenger. Josh was not privy to all what was said between them, but he Officer 2 ask her why her name did not come up on the computer? Officer 2 had instructed her to get out of Josh’s car and she was out of the car, on the footpath. Josh’s female passenger assured Officer 2 that she had given him, her correct name and address. Officer 2 said she was not on the “system” suggesting she had or was lying to him about her true identity. She said she had never been questioned or stopped by Police. Officer 2 said “That’s impossible” – “everyone’s on the system”. Josh’s passenger was most distraught about the whole incident, and Josh gained the impression that she thought he was a “person of interest” to Police and requested Josh immediately take her home and these actions have undermined Josh’s relationship with this woman.
The question/s that remain to be answered are :
Why was the police car speeding , when it was travelling in the opposite direction to Josh ? (No flashing warning lights we active)
Why was the police car speeding , when it was travelling in the same direction to Josh ? (No flashing warning lights we active)
Why did the Police car make an illegal U-turn?
Why was the Police car “tailgating” Josh’s car when it could have driven in a safe manner in the other lane?
Why was the Police car “straddling” the roadway, potentially creating a danger to other traffic ? (This was NOT the culmination of some “crime”)
Why were neither Police Officers wearing “high visibility” vests or clothing at night when they were walking around on a roadway?
Josh has no issue with them asking him to submit for a “breath test”.
Why did Officer 2 need to question Josh’s passenger as to her identity ?
Why did Officer 2 need to see in Josh’s boot ? (if he suspected something – why did he not say what he was suspecting)
Why was Josh threatened with having his car defected when there was clearly nothing wrong with his car ?
Why did Officer 1 engage in a search of Josh’s car ?
Why do Police not have full audio and/or video recordings of all their activities (as Victoria is now being introduced in Victoria)?
Is this the type of behaviour we can expect from Police ...... as the norm ?
GOVERNMENT !!!!! Govern for who ???
Isn’t it bizarre that once Politicians are elected they seem to forget who ACTUALLY ELECTED them to office. Once they reach Parliament it’s THEIR agenda that seems to take precedence – not the views of their electorate..... They do not seem to have any mechanism or willingness to consult with their electorate – nor be guided by the views of their electorate It seems once they are ensconced in office they set their OWN AGENDA..... Does the voice of the electorate really matter ? Does anyone care what the electorate thinks ?
Thursday, January 8, 2009
and the WINNER is !!!!........just appalling injustice once more.
SHAME SHAME and more SHAME !!!
this is a rather long story..... but by the end of it you realise the VICTIMS are completely forgotten altogether........... its about GREED, more GREED and yet even MORE GREED. The shameful thing is its being played out right here in Adelaide.
The Independent Weekly article is linked here :
http://www.independentweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/the-liddy-files-shamed-and-defamed/1391049.aspx?storypage=0
this is a rather long story..... but by the end of it you realise the VICTIMS are completely forgotten altogether........... its about GREED, more GREED and yet even MORE GREED. The shameful thing is its being played out right here in Adelaide.
The Independent Weekly article is linked here :
http://www.independentweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/the-liddy-files-shamed-and-defamed/1391049.aspx?storypage=0
FINKS arrested - Dateline 8th Jan 2009
Dateline : 8 January, 2009
Adelaide - Australia
According to new reports - Finks members implicated in "drug deals"
News Ltd report as follows:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24887831-2682,00.html
Adelaide - Australia
According to new reports - Finks members implicated in "drug deals"
News Ltd report as follows:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24887831-2682,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
